A Grand Illusion of Time

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » A Grand Illusion of Time

Page 4 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

A Grand Illusion of Time

Author

Message

OsherD

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 12:18 am

Guest

[quote:3570259784]From Osher Doctorow
[/quote:3570259784]
rie@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

[quote:3570259784]nature. Time, whichever way defined by man, is not >required for
nature
to function or progress.
[/quote:3570259784]

I notice that Neo-Nazis and Neo-Stalinists tend to outlaw thoughts.
[quote:3570259784]From the people who replied to your unqualified claim (you don't even
know enough to say whether you are giving a theory, an axiom, a[/quote:3570259784]
definition, a theorem, a proof, evidence, etc.), it certainly tells us
what a lot of the riffraf on sci.physics are imitating. Even Uncle Al,
my "arch enemy", is wiser, which tells you where the insects start.
For insects, indeed, there is no time. No, correct that. For insects,
there is more time than for Peter Riedt. Even Lee Smolin, whose Loop
Quantum Gravity (LQG) is a joke in my opinion, believes in time. Look
him up on the internet including one of his papers on time. Do you
know of any metric on arXiv that doesn't use time? Do you know what
arXiv is? (Pause while he looks at his agenda.)

Osher Doctorow

G=EMC^2 Glazier

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 12:50 am

Guest

Hi Nick Nicely put that time moves in curves. Humankind can have
his brain tell him time is an illusion. Gravity is the universe's
clock. Gravity evolves continually all that is. Density speeds up time
and how fast gravity can evolve such objects as nebular,stars,
galaxies,and universes. Nature uses explosions to save time.
Nature does not care how humankind relates to time. Its main reason for
creating intelligent life in the universe was "to see itself" Bert

Nick

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 1:05 am

Joined: 17 Apr 2005 Posts: 3566

So the universe created itself?

Boloney Bert.

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 1:57 am

Guest

OsherD wrote:
[quote:c79dfbff1c]From Osher Doctorow

rie@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

nature. Time, whichever way defined by man, is not >required for
nature
to function or progress.

I notice that Neo-Nazis and Neo-Stalinists tend to outlaw thoughts.
From the people who replied to your unqualified claim (you don't
even
know enough to say whether you are giving a theory, an axiom, a
definition, a theorem, a proof, evidence, etc.), it certainly tells
us
what a lot of the riffraf on sci.physics are imitating. Even Uncle
Al,
my "arch enemy", is wiser, which tells you where the insects start.
For insects, indeed, there is no time. No, correct that. For insects,
there is more time than for Peter Riedt. Even Lee Smolin, whose Loop
Quantum Gravity (LQG) is a joke in my opinion, believes in time. Look
him up on the internet including one of his papers on time. Do you
know of any metric on arXiv that doesn't use time? Do you know what
arXiv is? (Pause while he looks at his agenda.)

Osher Doctorow
[/quote:c79dfbff1c]
[EL]
LOL. Smile

I liked that bit in which you say "which tells you where the insects
start."
Since 1994 (when it was deja vu and before) we had a famous
"grasshopper"
Click and enjoy.
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=grasshopper+JeffMo+smart1234&qt_s=Search

EL

Harry

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 2:10 am

Guest

"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42823C85.B977CB6E@hate.spam.net...
[quote:3c5d2a46c3]riedt1@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept.
[snip crap]

Tell that to radioactive decay half-life.
[/quote:3c5d2a46c3]
There's another one of such crap!
Radioactive decay life can't hear you don't you know that? Wink

Harry

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 2:19 am

Guest

"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1115833086.999562.273420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[quote:25ba55e4d3]
rie...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept. It requires an intelligent memory...

Peter Riedt

Only time? everything people conceptualize are just that, concepts.

But it is different to say that time is a grand illusion. If it is,
speed cannot be really defined, it is also an illusion.
[/quote:25ba55e4d3]
No, it's the other way round. Motion can be held to be physical (as Newton
did), from which the time concept follows.

Harald

[quote:25ba55e4d3]So is then
change in position. Then there is no change, it is an illusion. But
simple observation tells you there is change. Change from day to night
for example requires revolution of the earth. Let us call this amount
of revolution the TIME it takes from day to night. That's no illusion.
Time naturally arises from observation. It is an empirical fact.

Mike
[/quote:25ba55e4d3]

Harry

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 2:37 am

Guest

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:W3wge.97$E7.31@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[quote:ab71b06632]
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:qvGdnURHfs7Q_R_fRVn-tw@prairiewave.com...
riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1115794775.825987.166850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept. It requires an intelligent memory
(such as the human brain) to have relevance.

Silly claptrap: Where's the physics ?

They believe their silly semantic nonsense is physics. They have not
grasped what Feynman explains early on in the lectures - physics is not
semantics.
[/quote:ab71b06632]
You mean to say that physics is only concerned with *observations* of
reality, and not with reality itself.
Feynman expressed this quite well, showing little care about reality itself
when he wrote, following Einstein:

"But if one always *appears* to be running at a different speed with respect
to the other, then so far as the first is concerned the other *is* running
at a different rate." (emphasis his)

Harald

Harry

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 3:11 am

Guest

"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115844641.c93ba664099aeaf111c4eba25748a58e@teranews...
[quote:271c958d6b]On a sunny day (Wed, 11 May 2005 16:55:40 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <gOqge.71964$NU4.17381@attbi_s22>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

eh, WHERE ARE THE GRAVITY WAVES?
See: http://panteltje.com/rotfl.gif

Have you ever calculated the amplitude of Gravity waves for various
sources, Jan? Or even looked up other's calculation?
Dear Sam, I have been to the LIGO site, the calculations are there.
They should have a signal above noise now, but they do not.
[/quote:271c958d6b]
For the lazy lurkers, do you have a link handy to the calculation page from
which your claim
follows?

Harald

[quote:271c958d6b]You know YOU are the one who posted about that funny thing on the
....server
that had physicist train 'anti stress' or something by calculating the
amplitude of gravity waves LOL.
I have been programming all day, nothing but math, and a lot more hardware
to boot.
Those extremely stupido silly calculations are based on the small brain
man EInStEiN
and ASSUME gravity waves originate form some orbiting stars.
There are no gravity waves.
Call in next year again for a reality check.
And, if you EVER did those (stress relief?) calculations yourself, did you
take into account the fact that gravity MUST have a finite range?
It is quantisized, (well EiNsTeIn conflicts with quantization but that is
your
idols problem).
Anything that consists of quanta is not infinitely divisible, and thus has
a
finite range.
I would think the tinkerers at LIGO would have figured that, but they
likely
needed money for the largest MM experiment ever Wink

And null result.
There must be a mechanism for gravity, and IF it is a particle, it is
quantized,
and it has finite range.
Bring it in your calculations too.

eInStEiN was WRONG about gravity waves.
And very likely a few more things too I think.[/quote:271c958d6b]

Bill Hobba

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 4:30 am

Guest

"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:42831568$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
[quote:2e3d6629f7]
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:W3wge.97$E7.31@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:qvGdnURHfs7Q_R_fRVn-tw@prairiewave.com...
riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1115794775.825987.166850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept. It requires an intelligent memory
(such as the human brain) to have relevance.

Silly claptrap: Where's the physics ?

They believe their silly semantic nonsense is physics. They have not
grasped what Feynman explains early on in the lectures - physics is not
semantics.

You mean to say that physics is only concerned with *observations* of
reality, and not with reality itself.
[/quote:2e3d6629f7]
Nope. I am referring to what he says on page 12-1 and other similar
comments scatted throughout the volume:

'One might sit in the armchair all day and define words at will, but to find
what happens when two balls push against each other, or when a weight is
hung on a spring, is another matter altogether because the way the bodies
behave is something completely outside my choice of definitions.'

[quote:2e3d6629f7]Feynman expressed this quite well, showing little care about reality
itself
when he wrote, following Einstein:

"But if one always *appears* to be running at a different speed with
respect
to the other, then so far as the first is concerned the other *is* running
at a different rate." (emphasis his)
[/quote:2e3d6629f7]
I do not recall Feynman placing your emphasis on the word 'reality'.

Thanks
Bill

[quote:2e3d6629f7]
Harald

[/quote:2e3d6629f7]

Eckard Blumschein

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 4:47 am

Guest

On 5/11/2005 12:43 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[quote:957783d5f7]"Eckard Blumschein" <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in message news:4281E253.2050609@et.uni-magdeburg.de...
Good reply Harald.

Another E-Engineer, right?
Here's yet another:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Engineer.html
[/quote:957783d5f7]

50 Ohm regardless of length?
Most likely BNC coax. Twisted pair has 100 Ohm.
Yust physicians or mathematicians might be ignorant of (my_0/epsilon_0)^1/2

The point is: The negative SQRT(1/my_0*epsilon_0) would be nonsense.

[quote:957783d5f7]Dirk Vdm
[/quote:957783d5f7]
For what reason this guy is so arrogant?

Gregory L. Hansen

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 5:44 am

Guest

In article <NPudnTdjAerV_B_fRVn-qQ@conversent.net>,
AllYou! <idaman@conversent.net> wrote:
[quote:6bf990cf58]
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:428259F9.B9608A2B@hate.spam.net...
"AllYou!" wrote:

"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42823C85.B977CB6E@hate.spam.net...
riedt1@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept.
[snip crap]

Tell that to radioactive decay half-life.

Your notion of time could be totally eliminated, and nothing would
change WRT
radioactive
decay.

You are horribly wrong. Half-life is a clock. Name a set of physical
conditions that alters the rate of alpha-decay. Relativistic vleocity
vs. an inertial observer won't do it - in fact, it proves my point.

Are you claiming that the intellectual concept of time alters the rate
of alpha-decay?
[/quote:6bf990cf58]
The concept of time is necessary to recognize that something decays at
all. Otherwise there can be no meaning attached to the concepts of decay
or change or rate. The intellectual concept of time determines the
description of the rate of alpha decay. A different intellectual concept
of time may require a different description of alpha decay. But both
descriptions would refer to the same phenomenon, so one could be mapped to
another, and what we get is not that time is an arbitrary or meaningless
concept, but that we must use a concept of time that is sufficient to
describe the things we see and want to describe.

--
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin

G=EMC^2 Glazier

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 5:56 am

Guest

Nick No Baloney Universes do create universes by recycling their energy
and matter. Our universe was created 22 billion years ago when a BH
reached its critical mass. We know there are billions and billions of
black holes immersed in our universe,and each can give birth to a
universe. There are as many universes as flakes of snow in an endless
storm. Nature deals in very large numbers. Reality is nature creates in
pairs,and universes are no exception to that rule. This is proven to me
by Treb who lives in our parallel universe just the thickness of a
membrane away The creation of the very first universe that took place
eons ago had a different start,but its history is consistent with
ours,and all the others. Reality is I know how it also came to be and
start the wheels rolling.for all the others Bert

Eckard Blumschein

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 7:05 am

Guest

On 5/11/2005 3:30 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
[quote:79955db609]On a sunny day (10 May 2005 23:59:35 -0700) it happened riedt1@yahoo.co.uk
wrote in <1115794775.825987.166850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:

A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept. It requires an intelligent memory
I have heard of: single ported, SRAM, dual ported, dynamic, flash, core,
and a few other, up to mercury delay lines, but this is the first reference
to 'intelligent' ones.
Timing is important in memory chips.
We measure in nanoseconds.
No illusions allowed Smile

[/quote:79955db609]

Do never measure future time, not even in femtoseconds.

E.

Eckard Blumschein

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 7:08 am

Guest

On 5/11/2005 3:52 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
[quote:00b7cd9f67]riedt1@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept. It requires an intelligent memory (such as the
human brain) to have relevance.

The universe was hotter, denser and smallar in the past independent of
humans and what they think.
[/quote:00b7cd9f67]
Well, but future data only exist like human fabrications. Right?

E.

Eckard Blumschein

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 7:11 am

Guest

On 5/11/2005 5:15 PM, AllYou! wrote:
[quote:7434b707de]"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:c6oge.74185$c24.45909@attbi_s72...
riedt1@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept. It requires an intelligent memory (such as the
human brain) to have relevance.

The universe was hotter, denser and smallar in the past independent of
humans and what they think.

But what you fail to understand is that the past is nothing but an intellectual concept.
[/quote:7434b707de]
I merely agree with respect to the notion "the past".

[quote:7434b707de]What was is other a memory (intellect required) or an estimate (calculation required).
Neither of those exist in nature except as a complete construct of the intellect. Nature
only knows what is. What is physical is only what is.
[/quote:7434b707de]
Dig for fossils in order to get more wise.

E.

Page 4 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sat Dec 12, 2009 2:46 am Science Forum Index